Monthly Archives

Syndicate

Monday, February 03, 2014

HALLANDALE BEACH, FL, January 30, 2014—Thanks to a controversial finish and lots of media outcry both pro and con, handicapping contests have been making front page racing news again. This was on my mind as I watched the latest National Handicapping Champion present a trophy at Santa Anita over the weekend.

If anyone is unfamiliar with the story, it involves the tactics used by the winner in the last race of the recent contest finals in which an attempt was made to either hedge his bet against his most serious challenger or, in some way, an attempt to manipulate the payoff on a rival’s horse by deflating the odds with a last-minute win-pool plunge.

I agree with those who posited that Jose Arias did nothing wrong; that it is part of a winning strategy that was within National Handicapping Championship rules. The last time I looked, there was nothing wrong about trying to take money out of a race by any legal means necessary, either parimutuelly or, in this instance, within handicapping tournament guidelines.

Hedging, or making “saver wagers” will continue given this same scenario unless and until the rules are changed to prevent this practice--which may be unenforceable--by not posting player’s selections until after the betting pools are closed. Hungry as all tracks and their ADWs are for handle, there probably will be no urgency to make changes.

Saver bets are, of course, something that’s done every day, the most common being to cover horses unused in the final leg(s) of horizontal Pick wagers either by wagering straight on longshots or taking favorites in top of “alive” horses in the vertical pools; exactas, trifectas, superfectas and the like.

But make no mistake: Playing in handicapping contests is not the same thing as conventional betting. By definition, handicapping is about picking winners, and a multitude of winners likely would carry the day even for the worst money managers.

Picking winners and making money often is a completely different mindset, especially in tournaments where money management and strategizing against a finite number of opponents often will trump handicapping prowess. Promoting handicapping contests is a sexy marketing stratagem; a money management contest is a non-starter, sounds too much like work.

In the real world of the horse racing, there’s always tomorrow. Indeed, without that promise there likely would be no industry. It’s axiomatic that a trainer would never die if he thought he had a 2-year-old capable of winning next year’s Kentucky Derby. For the horseplayer, it’s the promise of tomorrow’s past performances.

No serious horseplayer, or weekend warrior who takes handicapping seriously, would come down to the final race in the midst of a bad day and tap out on some wild longshot whose only attraction is the payoff on the odds board. Even rank and file bettors know when it’s time to just fold ‘em.

But the contest player who’s paid his entrance fee has nothing to lose by throwing a Hail Mary deep into the parimutuel end-zone. Yes, the winning contestant must choose the correct longshot. But taking a price shot is much easier when there’s no other choice; if he’s far behind but still dreams of wining, betting one of the top three choices that wins about 75 percent of the time doesn’t work.

Of the contest formats currently in use, the one that most resembles real world conditions is the live money contest in which bettors pay an entrance fee but must dedicate the majority of their fixed bankroll to that day’s wagering account, just as a conventional horseplayer might buy a betting voucher.

Betting greenbacks is as real as it gets, and real-world handicapping demands that players try to assess a horse’s real chances of victory at proper odds. Just as we thought that the graded-earnings qualifier for the Kentucky Derby needed overhauling, so, too, do handicapping contests. Last race “stabbing” should be minimized to reward handicappers who made good, consistent selections throughout the contest.

Rewarding consistent, handicapping excellence should be a value that’s put in place, as a teaching tool for neophytes or possible converts. This is how the game should best be played to achieve long term profitability, the long haul being important to health of the individual and the industry.

Maybe a weighted points system, one that takes into account payoffs that fall within certain prices ranges: less than 8-5 might be worth 3 points; 8-5 to 3-1, 4 points; 7-2 to 6-1, 5 points; 6-1 to 9-1, 6 points, 10-1 or more 9 points. This is just one example.

The above would reward both consistency and creativity once the handicapper makes an honest assessment of any horse’s real chances of victory and its odds; the definition of value. Good, consistent handicapping should matter. Isn’t trying to pick winners without going on tilt what this game should be about?

We’ve written about this before. At that time, regular contributor Top Turf Teddy thinks the answer is to simply multiply the number of winners by the dollar total accumulated. Indulto would like to see the most winners rewarded over a broad spectrum of events; races run over disparate surfaces, distances, and at different venues, since different conditions require different skill sets.

My good friend, the late, great Cary Fotias, had a different take. In 2012, he wrote here: “No format is perfect, or even close to it. I measure my performance in real life by the month, not a day or two. For professionals, this game is won in the long run. I've had three losing YEARS over the last two decades…

“It's nothing unusual for me to lose 20 bets in a row as I am usually betting on ’value’ horses at 4/1 or higher. While I prefer live-money contests, as they most closely resemble real-life wagering, they have their flaws also…

“My favorite event is the $10,000 Breeders Cup tournament. Of the $10,000, $7,500 is your live betting bankroll and $2,500 goes to prize money... Unless players have deep, deep pockets, they have to treat their bets with respect. For that same reason, several top tournament poker players can't cut it in a cash game…

If the DRF/NTRA want to better measure handicapping proficiency, they should run a year-long tournament consisting of, say, 10 races per weekend, every week. Each player would be required to make 400 bets over the course of the year. I say 400 because that allows 12 weeks off for those who can't make it every weekend and [permits] contestants to pass certain races, just like real life.”

One thing I noticed was how poorly the final table contestants did against each other. They picked very few winners on the last five mandatory races. There was hardly any movement in the standings. The exception being the guy moving up from third to second and missing first by $1.20 because of the late odds drop costing him $550,000. Too much of a disparity between first and second IMO.

Agree that some sort of a formula should be devised to credit picking more winners.
The 20-1 cap on win and 10-1 cap on place doesn’t do enough either IMO and is not even ‘real world’ since extreme longshots hardly ever pay half as much to place as to win. The real life ratio on big longshots is usually 1/3 to 1/5. Take it from a longtime player of bombs.

I’d love to see a ‘picking winners’ contest, the person who picks the most winners, wins.

This would be quite the skill contest and you wouldnt ever have to worry about someone getting lucky and beating you, the best person at picking winners would win, luck wouldnt play as much of a factor as it does with the current format.

For those persons attempting to make a profit investing in thoroughbred horse racing outside of these contests, the method you must employ to win these contests is akin to bringing a vodka bottle to an AA meeting.

In the real world, “stabbing” only results in disaster over the long haul; we have no control over when and where a viable price will appear, and pari-mutuel patience is paramount; you must be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Another method that might work to get more persons involved, with a view towards stillriledup’s comment, is to give half the prize money to the person who picks the greatest number of winners irrespective of price; something for everybody; Granny can still play 70-1 shots, and the talented people in the crowd would most certainly opt for the most winners over the most dollars. In any event, I stand by my original suggestion as the best way to identify “the best handicapper,” Dollars times number of winners.

Ted, the powers that be probably wouldn’t go for win x price idea as much as the half-winners, half-money-won format.

The latter actually might make for a more exciting contest; a sort of 2-in-1 format where individual strategies could shift hallway through the contest after players assess their best chance to win.

Paying twice the number of people could have a positive effect on the number of entries, might double the number of qualifying contests, so to speak, and it still be could be promoted as a million dollar tournament.

$375,000, or thereabouts, is still a life changing amount of money, and twice as many players would increase their level of play consistently.

2 people enter a contest where you have to make 20 win wagers on 20 different races. The first person goes 1 for 20 and the horse pays $70.00 to win. The second person has 10 out of 20 winners for an aggregate of $70.00. Who would you say is the winner of the contest? Who would you consider a better handicapper?

JP, your point regarding the fact that payoffs are capped begs a response from yours truly. It seems not only do we have social workers in the Stewards box, but they are also running the handicapping contests. Let me get this straight, these handicapping contest executives believe that the most dollars won should win the handicapping tournament, and their answer to critics, such as myself, is to “limit” the payoff you can receive? Ridiculous! They obviously did this in an attempt to somewhat thwart the “stabbers.” Why not limit a win bet to $6.00, this way a lot more people can feel they have a chance, and we can all play chalk-a-doodle-doo all the day long! If I, as a “handicapper,” not a “stabber,” pick a horse that pays $95.60 to win, I want every penny of it to count. The perfect, and I repeat, perfect way to ensure that I am not a “stabber” with no handicapping skills whatsoever, is to multiply the number of winners I have by the total dollar figure.

I have no problem with these contests; the rules are known ahead of time, and if a person enters, he really has no complaints. Should they be called handicapping contests; certainly not. They are more like “Horse Racing Roulette.” Round and round she goes, where she stops nobody knows.

A handicapping contest I would like to see is a 3-day contest using 3 racetracks each day. You must play every race. 10 points for a Winner, 5 points for a Placer, and 3 points for a Shower. The dollar is dead. The man with the most points after the last race from Santa Anita on the 3rd day is crowned the winner; the King of the Handicappers, not the King of the Stabbers. Long live the King.

Basic rules as I remember them are:
-it’s a showdown contest
-you have 3 races to play each day (free PP’s are provided)
-pick a horse in each race in advance
-at least one of your picks has to finish in the money, otherwise you’re eliminated (they give you one free pass called a lucky horseshoe)
-the dollar totals for WPS payoffs are accumulated
-the person with the highest point total that makes it to the end is the winner

There’s cash for the top finishers, plus, I believe a spot in a live contest.

Denny, funny you should mention. Played in the 2nd round at The Meadows Friday night, finished third, missed winning by about $3.40.

Also, you’ll be pleased to know we’ve added harness racing coverage to HRI starting today. There will be weekly commentary from Harness Racing Update and Darin Zoccali, New Meadowlands track handicapper and oddsmaker, among several other hats he wears.

Darin will do the Feature Race Analysis daily and started out with a Pick 5 for tomorrow--there’s a carryover--it being New Med’s reopening since its Super Bowl hiatus.

Please let me know what you think and tell your harness buddies that we’re in the game.

*** HorseRaceInsider will delete any comment that engages in personal attacks directed at anyone, uses foul language, or one made by an imposter using another’s name to express an opinion or comment.

HRI will not, however, edit or discourage those who, with intellectual honesty, disagree with HRI staffers or other readers. We also will not, as is done on some racing sites, edit disagreeable or negative commentary in the interests of commerce.